Rating: 
Summary: Powerful
Review: The liberals that are rating this book with a one star have not even looked at the book. I went to Sean's book signing in Atlanta last night and waited five hours in line. No one was complaining and the crowd behind us was another three hour wait. He said he was staying until he signed the last book. As late as it was, I couldn't wait to start reading it. I have read about 1/3 so far and it is powerful. He wants our country safe from terrorism. President Bush has shown us that he is committed to defeating the terrorists and he has not faltered. I used to be a liberal and thank God I have grown up.
Rating: 
Summary: Worst book ever read
Review: How can a person actually believe that everything said and done by conservatives is right and correct and everything by liberals is wrong and incorrect and bad for America. If thats what you believe, you will love this book. I have heard the author say that only people who have not read his book give it 1 star. Well, I have read it, and it stinks. He still believes Bush was right about Iraq despite evidence to the contrary. He uses liberal like its a dirty word. Thank God most of America is middle road and doesnt believe this extreme belief. HOw the man can take Osama and think it applies to Iraq is unreal. Look at the best seller list and 1/2 of the books are anti bush. If you want bias, unsubstantiated, this is the book for you.
Rating:
Summary: MUST READ
Review: This is an excellent book by an excellent author. i am sick of you mad libs putting the book down when you dont read it. i have not read al franken's book therefore i will not rate it.. i used to be a big liberal and then i realized i was wrong... dead wrong. without the guiding light of conservatives all accross the country and hannity i would be another mad at everythig lib. what a awsome thing it is to say i have been hannitized.
Rating:
Summary: Great book !!!
Review: Liberal lunacy and insanity are exposed once again... thank you Sean!!!
Rating:
Summary: Unbelievable....
Review: Hannity's running theme throughout this book is that "evil exists" and that it means to harm us. I don't think anyone in the country would deny this assertion. This statement is not inherently about politics or government or any of it, and this is my main disagreement with this book. Hannity uses generalities to support his own, incredibly narrow view of politics in this country. His broad generalizations about "what liberals think" are absurd and completely unfounded. Given the tone and scope of this book, I don't think Hannity would give an admitted liberal the time of day, much less sit down for a cup of coffee to have an intelligent discussion about political theory. It is not unpatriotic to be critical of one's leader or state of government, nor is it evil. This kind of thinking is the true evil.I read this book in order to learn more about what and how modern conservatives think. If Hannity is the poster boy, then we are all in trouble, conservatives and liberals alike!
Rating:
Summary: low-brow, biased, simplistic and ignorant
Review: Sean Hannity's childish and overly simplified notions of evil espoused in this book serve only to highlight his own insecurities, prejudices, and closed-mindedness. Hannity's lack of education is obvious in his ignorance to the barriers we face between cultures, languages, and social classes in our modern world. He is unable to see past the borders of our society to see the REAL evils we face in life - the AIDS crisis, the destruction of the environment - that are global and that we face as a species. Instead he earnestly advocates the sociopathic role Bush has scripted for our country; America should attack, control, or supress anything that strikes our fancy just because we're the strongest and we can!
Rating:
Summary: Modern day liberalism needs a genuine rebuttal
Review: Some knucklehead from Brentwood California has added a lot of the negative reviews you see below. I guess some of Hannity's critics don't believe in Freedom of Speech because they're trying to trash a book they haven't read. This book is so important, and here is why: The 20th century was littered with dictators, genocide, and horrible crimes against humanity. While it would seem obvious that the world would rally against evil, there have always been those to defend and appease the indefensible. For example, Jimmy Carter and Neville Chamberlein were NOT EVIL people. But they shared the notion that evil did not need to be confonted, or that bad people and leaders just needed "therapy" or could be persuaded to become "good". History has shown that the modern day peace movement has not converted ANY dictators, and they continue to coddle and stroke the egos of Castro, Kim Jong (Mentally) Il and others. And that is why modern day liberals (not the classic definition of liberals) are dreadfully wrong and must be opposed in the 21st century.
Rating:
Summary: Read Before you Judge
Review: It is my view that the early reviews of this book must have been written by folks who didn't read it. I agree there is a bias but one knows that going in. It would be curious to know what some of the cantacorous folks took issues with.
Rating:
Summary: Totally Biased
Review: Never saw such a one-sided view in my life. Libs and independents should be outrage at such erroneous crap. Book should be put in the back of every bookstore warehouse along with those of Laura In-gra-ham.
Rating:
Summary: Get Real
Review: I'm really tired of defending my political beliefs to my liberal friends each time one of these so called conservative pundits publishes another inane screed like this. This book is so bad it doesn't pass the laugh test. It is *patriotic* to debate foreign policy, especially when we have troops on the ground whose very lives depend on a sound policy where all prespectives are considered. This book goes down same laughable illogical lines as Ann Coulter's debunked "Treason". To equate dissent with treason, or saying it aids terrorists, or that it's "evil", or dividing America is just silly on its face! It appauls me that anyone would concur with such patently stupid assertions. A quick example: A. "Nearly three years have passed since that tragic day in September...At first, the nation rallied behind its leader. But by the time the confrontation with Iraq presented itself, our courage and moral certainty seemed to fade in the face of partisan bickering and posturing. Now the... Democratic Party are trying to use the demanding aftermath of the war to exploit our national cause for their own political advantage. How could we allow ourselves to forget so soon?"
>Yes, all Americans rallied behind our leader after 9/11. We are unified as a nation *STILL* regarding the erradication of Al Quida on both the the right and the left. B."...by the time the confrontation with Iraq presented itself, our courage and moral certainty seemed to fade"
> This is because, the game changed when the president vastly broadened the war on terror to include Iraq, which was not involved in the 9/11 attack. A "preemptive strategy" is a significant, historic paradigm shift in the justification to wage war. It's sound, and I happen to agree with it, but dissenting opinions are a healthy, expected, indeed a crucial part of the process, and one Rebublicans should *encourage* not stifle! To say that dissenters lack "moral courage" or "certainty", and minimize important foreign policy discussion as "partisan bickering" is, again, ridiculas on its face. It's certainly not "treason" or "evil" nor does it "aid terrorists".
Absurd! C. "...liberals inexplicably doubt that "absolute evil truly exists," and instead foolishly cling to the idea that the world's problems might arise from social, psychological and cultural differences or from economic inequality."
>Okay... did Hannity conduct a survey on this? Of 1000 liberals surveyed, 69% claimed "evil does not exist". Again, a laughable assertion. If a country or terrorist group poses a threat to US interests, and a liberal says, "it's due to cultural differences" and a republican says, "it's because they're evil" -doesn't matter! Both would agree that the terrorist group or country "is a threat" but may have different perspective regarding motive. The key question *TO DEBATE* is the sensible course of action concerning said threat. Do you see how simplistic and silly this is? If you're interested in REAL political discussion with a conservative perspective - one that isn't (frankly) written to the lowest common denominator, I suggest you subscribe to The Weekly Standard and pass on this type of exploitive mass market garbage.
| 
